Doesnt mean ot cant be ruled different later on. Settled law is meaningless now.
Except for being stated directly in the amendment itself 
; it was clearly intended for states to maintain militias.
About as relevant as saying “well horse and carriage could still be needed if cars suddenly disappeared”.
At some point people have to simply accept that something written centuries ago may no longer be appropriate, or in this case, even make sense.
Oh? Has mankind ended wars and invasions when I wasn’t looking?
Your cute little AR-15 is about as relevant in terms of war.
Really? What sophisticated arms were the Afghans using to hold us at bay for the last decade or so? Must be their F-16’s and nuclear arsenal keeping us from gaining control of the entire country for so long.
LOL, at least do some minimal research… anyway, IEDs are primarily the issue.
IED’s are sophisticated weaponry beyond the capability of US citizens to employ if necessary?
I 100% agree that Heller made the Militia argument settled law. IT applies to individuals citizens. Period.
The Heller decision ALSO makes settled law that some restrictions on purchasing weapons, limiting the type of weapons, and restricting areas where weapons can be carried is ALSO settled law.
You cant accept only PART of Heller. The entire decision is seteled law. Including…
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
1 Like
So you understand that your cute little AR-15 is not relevant, good.
Go ahead and learn how to make bombs if you want, you can keep them in your bunker next to the cases of survival food and gold.
What good are bombs if the power in charge has no reason to fear putting people out to disarm them? I think guns might come in handy for that bit.
Except it is not. No where in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution does it talk about the right to abort a pregnancy. Yet Heller upholds a constitutional right to bear arms.
You misunderstand my post.
I am only comparing Heller with Roe v. Wade in the context of it being the “boogeyman” precedent that the respective movements decry.
Gotcha…Thanks for clarifying.
Rowe was based on Griswold v. Connecticut which explicitly addressed the issue of what assumptions should be made when something is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution – the issue in Griswold was bans on contraception. Ironically, the very liberal William O. Douglass who wrote the majority decision in Griswold argued that if something is not mentioned in the Constitution it should be presumed to be a right of the citizen rather than falling under the powers of government, unless the Constitution is amended to grant powers to the government.
I have always found it ironic that the most leftwing judge in the history of the court authored such a powerfully small government decision but there you have it.
Big government conservatives like Robert Bork have criticized Griswold but there is no Supreme Court precedent that reverses it.
It’s settled law until and unless a new case on the same issue is heard by the Court and a ruling that reversed Heller was made. That is a very remote possibility on both counts. Reversals of SCOTUS rulings are extremely rare and when they occur it is invariably over a major social issue such as racial discrimination. I think you had better get used to the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right whether there are Militias or not.
wow…I am going to talk with my sister about that one…get some more explanation. She excelled at constitutional law. I had no idea.
No … read it carefully. It was to preserve the existing right to be armed so that the Militias would have armed citizens available to fill the ranks if needed. The right exists regardless of the need. The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects those enumerated rights from being taken away by the government.
1 Like
Admittedly, having set up a good small government precedent in Griswold, Douglass then went a bit overboard and claimed to detect a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. That was as egregious a bit of judicial activism and Scalia writing the militia clause out of 2A in Heller. What I take away from the two examples is that judicial activism is a sin practiced by all sides politically, although conservatives like to pretend they are Constitutional originalists. Decisions like Heller prove they are anything but.
Both left and right use power to achieve their ends, while pretending that only their opponents would stoop so low.
